Q&A: Current Issues
Current Issues
Question
A. What does the Rabbi think about the process of expelling Ofer Cassif from the Knesset? Is it proper to do so? Is it legally and democratically justified?
B. What does the Rabbi think about the fact that Ben-Gvir wants to restrict Israeli Arabs from ascending the Temple Mount, contrary to the recommendation of the security establishment (who believe this is likely to worsen our security situation during Ramadan)?
Answer
A. Regarding Cassif, I’m not familiar with the details. In principle, I oppose expelling members of Knesset so long as they represent some segment of the public. It’s just burying your head in the sand about an opinion that exists on the ground. For exactly the same reason that Arab members of Knesset are allowed to serve, even though this directly contradicts the law. If he poses a danger, that is grounds for expulsion. Opinions are not such grounds.
B. Here too, I’m not familiar with the details. When I hear this kind of report in the media, two thoughts pass through my mind: 1. The reporting is probably biased against Ben-Gvir. There’s quite a lot to say against him, but there’s no doubt that the media piles it on far beyond what is true and appropriate. 2. I do not have much trust in the security establishment, since their main concern is achieving short-term quiet at any price. We are all paying heavy prices for that policy of theirs, and as far as I’m concerned it’s excellent that someone has come along to move their cheese. That of course causes them to join the orchestrated campaign against him, and not for the first time. Therefore, despite my low regard for Ben-Gvir and my opposition to his positions and his conduct, I’m really not impressed by reports like these.
Discussion on Answer
Regarding B(2):
We saw that the security establishment warned Netanyahu of a severe and rapidly approaching security danger if he continued with the judicial coup, and Gallant was even fired because of this.
Bibi refused to listen to the Chief of Staff,
and indeed Netanyahu’s massacre happened, very much so.
So it seems to me less wise, after Netanyahu’s massacre, to dismiss the warnings of the security establishment,
even if they don’t know how to point to a specific day, place, and hour.
Oren, the law states that someone who holds views opposed to the state as Jewish and democratic cannot serve. And also someone who identifies with terrorism.
A, I deleted your previous comment because we are not engaging in propaganda here. I considered whether to delete this one too, and decided to leave it, but with a warning note beside it.
This is nonsense. If there is one thing we have learned in recent months, it is that the security establishment is far more to blame here than the political echelon, and the constant throwing of all the filth at Netanyahu is political propaganda that I’m quite tired of (despite my well-known love for Netanyahu).
I’m having trouble understanding the Rabbi’s last answer for two reasons:
A. There is no dispute that the security system made a serious blunder on 10/7. But there are already findings indicating that pilots were not fully operationally fit, and therefore it took them time to respond. The lack of readiness stemmed from the government’s actions over the past year, and therefore it is certainly highly responsible for what happened.
B. The security system consists of professionals. Professionals can make mistakes, just as a doctor can give a mistaken medical diagnosis. Because of that, would I choose to get treatment from a populist teenage boy? Or would I prefer to go to a doctor, on the assumption that he too is aware that he made a mistake and still knows the reality on the ground and its implications at a better level than that plainly unprofessional figure?
A. Wrong. Not on 10/7, but for decades. The security establishment has been pushing us toward a policy of buying quiet. It is the one that restrains the politicians, and maybe sometimes that is a good thing. This is not a local blunder but a colossal failure of the very concept of “expertise” regarding security.
B. See the end of the previous section. I have never trusted “experts” in these areas so saturated with agenda and complexity. And now even less so. The very comparison to medicine or science is itself the mistake. Just look at all the retired “experts” in the TV studios, from whom I have not yet heard anything intelligent, and certainly nothing that an ordinary reasonable person on the street would not also know without them.
As for the pilots’ readiness, I won’t get into that here (I also haven’t heard that it contributed to the blunder of 10/7). But to say that this is the government’s fault is demagoguery. It takes two to tango.
https://news.walla.co.il/item/3615013?utm_campaign=socialbutton&utm_content=whatsapp&utm_medium=sharebutton&utm_source=whatsapp&utm_term=social
There are several vague statements here that could point to a problem caused by the pilots’ readiness.
“And now we have reached the elephant in the room—the protest. ‘It caught us at a challenging point. There was 100% turnout at Palmachim, but not everyone went back to flying because their operational fitness had to be rebuilt…’”
In any case, it’s clear that it takes two to tango, but I definitely think the government is the main party responsible and to blame; it is the leadership.
Just propaganda in my view. The problem was readiness, not the number of pilots.
It’s obvious that the government is responsible for the problem in the pilots’ readiness. It should also compensate the Kaplan protesters for fuel expenses and lost work hours.
As for the Temple Mount, one should be careful not to fall into that pit. We argue to the world that Israel does not violate freedom of religion, and as long as there is no clear and strong security consideration, we must not turn that claim into a lie.
“For exactly the same reason that Arab members of Knesset are allowed to serve, even though this directly contradicts the law.”
Why does it contradict the law?